The case of Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd (2006)[1] was a landmark UK Court of Appeal (England and Wales) judgment that established a novel four-step test for determining if a computer-implemented business method is a patentable invention. The decision provided an authoritative framework for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977.
The verdict is specifically significant for assessing the patentability of business methods and software in the United Kingdom under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Aerotel Ltd had ownership of a patented invention (GB 2 173 607) concerning a method and system for making telephone calls using prepaid cards. The invention enabled a caller to connect to a telephone exchange; input a code from a prepaid card; be connected to the desired number; and, have the cost deducted from the prepaid amount and the balance monitored.
.jpg)
It was alleged that Telco Holdings and others had infringed Aerotel’s patent. The validity of the patent depended on whether the claimed invention was excluded as a “business method” or “computer program” under Section 1(2).
In a related appeal, Macrossan’s Application, the claimant sought a patent for an automated system and method for generating legal documents interactively online. The Patent Office had refused it as relating to a business method and program for a computer. Both cases were heard together to provide clarity on the law.
To assess if a claimed invention was expressly excluded from patentability, the court introduced the following four-step test:
The court applied the new test to both cases and reached different conclusions.
In the Aerotel matter, the court held that the invention had a distinct technical contribution, because it described a new physical telephone exchange system for managing prepaid calls. Hence, it enabled a novel method of making calls.
Consequently, since the claimed invention was not merely a business method or computer program "as such," it was not excluded from patentability. But, despite being potentially patentable, the claim was found invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty over prior art.
In contrast, Macrossan’s claim was an automated process for generating legal documents using a standard computer. Hence, the invention was excluded as it merely computerised a mental and business process, without any technical effect. The court found that the invention was a non-technical business method and a computer program "as such," without any novel implementation using physical hardware or equipment. It was, therefore, squarely non-patentable under the provisions of the EPC.
The court dismissed Aerotel’s appeal and upheld the rejection in Macrossan. It criticized the inconsistent approaches previously taken by the UK Patent Office and other courts in similar cases.
The Aerotel/Macrossan judgment became the leading UK authority for assessing excluded subject matter in computer-related inventions. The four-step test has been consistently used as the standard ‘barometer’ by the UK Intellectual Property Office and UK courts for evaluating software and business method for patentability. The test lays down the boundary between technical innovation and non-patentable abstract or business ideas.
The Court of Appeal's approach was controversial though. It was criticized by the European Patent Office (EPO) for inconsistency with and divergence from statutory provisions in the EPC. The two systems continued to follow different lines of reasoning for several years.
The case provided important clarification on where the line is drawn between patentable technical inventions and non-patentable business or software methods in the United Kingdom.
At BLAZEVENTURES, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals for ensuring that the software and computer-related ideas, inventions, innovations and implementations of developers and enterprises are held patentable under applicable patent laws.
_______
[1] [2006]EWCA Civ 1371, Court of Appeals (England & Wales)
